Since bjmorgan suggested that I could mod my own 1792-1815 scenario, I have started working on it. I have created a list of generals and am working on their date of appearance. My question for now is: is there some way to remove generals via modding? I would like to remove generals that become outdated (like removing some of the French Revolutionary generals when Napoleon appears). Anyone have any ideas on how to remove "obsolete" generals?

Since bjmorgan suggested that I could mod my own 1792-1815 scenario, I have started working on it. I have created a list of generals and am working on their date of appearance. My question for now is: is there some way to remove generals via modding? I would like to remove generals that become outdated (like removing some of the French Revolutionary generals when Napoleon appears). Anyone have any ideas on how to remove "obsolete" generals?

Alas, there is no mechanism for this.

If you are doing this for your own use, you might consider what I have done - I mod the Generals in the game as I want, and when I want a General "removed" (for example, Russia's Suvurov in 1800), I just move the General to an out-of-the-way Province and "retire" him (as in, not use him anymore). That's a voluntary thing of course. If you play with others, they'd have to agree to your "House Rule" about when to "retire" certain Generals.

I'm glad that the player doesn't have so much control over promoting generals as in FoF. The problem with that system is: (a) playing out alternate history ACWs is of course the whole point, but Generals with alternate personalities is not really my idea of interesting, and I'll bet that's true for most. (b) if you play with historic generals, but lets say with abilities hidden, it still doesn't matter, because you know Sherman, Grant, etc., are the ones to promote. So a natural, if gamey action by any player is to promote them immediately, long before they really were in the actual war. But how do you impose a self- or house-rule about promoting? Taking away the players ability to promote as in CoG:EE is one solution.

However, I'd like to have a middle-ground somewhere between the existing FoF system and the CoG:EE system. Say for example, Generals earn points in four categories each with -10 to 50 points possible, for a total maximum General promotion score of 200 or lowest of -40

(i) Loyalty or some-such, the extent to which his units actually follow-through on orders, give a unit (container or a unit in battle) an order and it does it the guy in charge earns L point. Give an order and it doesn't follow-through the guy losses L points. Container in which a general is in charge moves when told +1.5 Loyalty points, doesn't move -1. General improves morale or bestows special ability in battle +1.5 L points. Unit surrender -5, unit retreats -2.5

(ii) Tactical Ability: success in fire-fights, changing formations, etc. earn him points, failure (meaning losing more casualties in a series of two or more fire-fights, or being driven back from a position) loses him points. +/- 0.5 points per additional 10% casualties inflicted/taken per firefight. +/- 1 per unit which pulls back. +/- half per failed formation change.

(iii) Logistical Ability: - 100 per casualties taken from disease or attrition. Some kind of bonus for more efficient use of supplies? Perhaps one of the other effects generals have on unit training or quality could best be represented through logistical ability?

(iv) Experience/Proven Ability: +0.1 per time-unit spent in battle (turns) * command size (1 per 2500 men for 1-Stars; 1 per 10,000 for 2-strs; 1 per 30,000 men for 3-stars; 1 per 60,000 men for 4-star, erc.; +0.75 per firefight engaged in directly (only brigades/divisions he is in charge of); +1 per special ability revealed; +0.5 for each point of ability revealed.

With a system like this, all starting generals might have some starting level of Promotion points, but obviously the more experience they gain, and the more successful they are, the quicker they rack up Promotion points. A general with higher promotion points costs less political points to promote! A basically pretty simple system, but you'd just need to figure out the math so that it was balanced so that it was not always possible to promote anyone, and always much more economical to promote the one's who have proven themselves in battle.

Assuming everything set up historically, but with general stats hidden, this would give incite the player to make use of his Generals to gain promotion points to be able to promote them more cheaply.

At present in FoF there are basicaly two dimensions that can be adjusted: randomize General's stats, hide General's stats. Another possibility to improve the engine would be to have different levels of each one. Instead of either totally historical or totally random General stats, have different levels, for example:

(3) Somewhat AHistorical Generals (some small fluctuations in one or two attributes, or very tiny fluctuations in all or several) Say a base rate of 10% for each Gen that his stats are varied, but up to some max number 15% to 45% of them or something

(4) Moderately Ahistorical Generals (mod to large fluc in two or three, or small to mod fluc in all or several) base rate of 33% for each Gen, with a max of 33% to 66% of all Generals altered in any given game.

(5) Mostly Ahistorical Generals (large fluctuations in one or two or moderate in all or several) base rate of 66% for each Gen to fluctuate, with 60% to 75% of them altered in any given game.

Also have different levels of Hidden Abilities Totally Unhidden (meaning 100% of all information about each General is visible at game start) Slightly Hidden Moderately Hidden (meaning about 50% of the info about each General is visible at game start) Mostly Hidden Totally Hidden at start

With this system, you could introduce a fairly high probability that key characters would be historical (say if you choose option (7) on the General Randomization Stats setting) but if you had all stats Totally Hidden at start, the player would not be certain _which_ of his best Generals were historic and which ones were not. In this case, the best option would be to test them in battle, and figure out who really was the best. This would go a long way to allowing for mostly historical Generals, instead of some bizarro world where all the Generals are just randomized--which in my opinion takes away from the historical feel of the game tremendously--but still deters a player from gamey promotion of Generals too early.

A system for politics with your generals was something we considered in the original COG:EE features list -- being able to hand out titles to your marshals has a lot of appeal to me as a gamer. In the end, we opted to put as much into the naval and brigade level detailed battles as we could. Really in our schedule it came down to a choice between "political system for the generals" and "brigade level combat." I think brigade level combat was the right choice.

I think we could add "end dates" for generals to a future patch at some point. We'd like to get a modest features patch out this fall, and may be able to fit it in for that.